This page looks plain and unstyled because you're using a non-standard compliant browser. To see it in its best form, please upgrade to a browser that supports web standards. It's free and painless.

Steven H. Schwartz & Associates, P.L.C.

Home Page | MAIN | Albums | Admin

Covenants Not to Compete

Schipper | 04 August, 2006 12:11

Employers frequently require employees to enter into agreements limiting the employee's ability to work for a competitor or to operate a competing business within a certain amount of time after departing the employer's business. Following the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act ("MARA"), Michigan courts enforce non-compete agreements that they find to be reasonable.

The MARA requires reasonableness of the agreement in four respects. The agreement must 1) protect the employer's reasonable competitive business interest, 2) be reasonable in duration, 3) be reasonable in the geographical area in which it restrains competition, and 4) be reasonable as to the type of employment or line of business prohibited.

Generally speaking, a reasonable non-compete agreement will be just restrictive enough to protect an employer's legitimate business interests while allowing the employee to earn a living. However, the application of the above stated factors is very fact intensive. A non-compete agreement that is enforceable under a certain set of facts may very well not be enforceable in another. For this purpose it is recommended that employers not simply use boilerplate language in their non-compete agreements but rather tailor the agreement to the specific needs of the employment relationship. Further, it is advisable to contact an employment attorney to research prior judicial enforcement of agreements in similar employment relationships.

 (More)

Employment Law :: Comment (0) :: Permalink :: Trackbacks (117)

Supreme Court Ruling Modifies Freedom of Speech in Public Sector Employment

Schipper | 04 August, 2006 12:02

On May 30, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, modified free speech in public sector employment by ruling that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is a part of the public employees' job duties.

In this case, Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S. Ct. 1951, Ceballos, a deputy district attorney, sent a memo questioning the truth of another department employee's witness statement in support of a search warrant. Ceballos claimed that his employer then retaliated against him because of this speech. The trial court ruled that Ceballos' speech was not a matter of public concern, and thus not protected, as it was made as part of his job duties. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it was protected speech as it revealed a matter of public concern and did not disturb the daily operations of the employer. (More)

Employment Law :: Comment (0) :: Permalink :: Trackbacks (317)
Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict and CSS.
Powered by pLog
Design by Book of Styles